NATIONAL RAILWAY LABI)R CONFEP,LNCE
.- -_.. ~,..r_.~* ~~rrrr~r a .u wACUI::cTnN. D. c. zoo3s!AREEA CODE: 207._659-9370
WILLIAP.I 11. DEGIFSFY, (:hairn~ M. E. PARKS. Virr(.h::irman
 Ii. E. GRP;F.ft, Direc,~r of It .scurrh J. F. GRIHJN. Ad,niuutrative 5ecrrtory D. P. I,EE,,GcnrralCoun.~1


Dr. Murray i'. Ro'·ran
 Professor of lndustrial Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Yorth, Texas 76129 J

 Mr. Milton Friednan
 350 Seventh AVe'1lle
 New Yorb:, idea Yerlc 1001`3

 Mr. Nichol as li. 'TZumas
 1225 - 1961 Str~et, 14. Ce.
 Washin;,ton, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

forwarded to you cosies of a:·.·.ari.·; of Special board · of Ac)just,.re,t
 Ho. 605 established by Article V1I of the February 7, 1°G3 Agreement.

 There are attached copies of bward Nos. 371 and 371, datec' October 26, 1973 rendered by Special Board of Adjustmen_ lo. 605.

                          Yours very truly,


                          v


Cc. Cl:a'rn:m, Employees 1?ati octal Conference Committee (1 'l)
    Messrs. C. L. Dennis (2)

    C. J. Chamberlain (2)

    :?. 1i. Fr;; . (2 )

    11. C. Crotty (2)

    J. J. Bert: (2)

    S. Z. Placl.: in (2)

    R. F. Smith (?)

    1:. K. Qui7,n, J r. (3)

    IT. 1?. farl.s

    J. 1;. Call- :1c

    1'. P. I;u1 -r

    T. F. Strnncl:

                                        Award No. 370

                                        Case No. H&RE-26-W


              SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Ford, et al, v. Joint Council of Dining Car Employees'
 TO ) Union, Local 351 Hotel and Restaurant Employees' and
 DISPUTE ) Bartenders' International Union, A.F.L.-C.I.O. and The
 Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, U. S.
 District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
 Western Division--No. 19284-A.
 STIPULATED Does the abolishment of positions, through discontinuance
 QUESTION AT of passenger trains since May, 1968, constitute operation
 ISSUE: al or organizational changes under Article III of the
 February 7, 1965, Agreement, and its interpretations,
 giving rise to carrier liability to protected employees
 for separation allowances or moving expenses under Article
 V of said Agreement?
 OPINION OF The essential facts are not in dispute. Carrier, as a
 BOARD: result of declining passenger traffic, received permission
 from the Interstate Commerce Commission to discontinue the
 the operation of certain passenger trains beginning in May 1968.

 As a consequence of such discontinuance Carrier abolished positions held by Dining Car Employees, members of Organization. Notice of discontinuance of passenger train operations and related abolishment of jobs was given to the Organization, including Local 351.

 The employees take the position that those employees whose jobs were abolished are entitled to protective benefits under the February 7, 1965, Agreement because the discontinuance of passenger trains was an operational or organizational change.

 Carrier asserts that prior awards of this Board have held that a job that is abolished due to a train discontinuance is not within the nurview of Article III of the February 7, 1965, Agreement; hence, Carrier has no obligation to provide moving expenses or separation allowances.

 An analysis of the prior awards of this Board make it clear that there is a distinction made between the abolishment of a job and the work is transferred (or continued in some manner), and the abolishment of a job and the work ceases to exist. In the first case there is an operational and organizational change; in the second case it is not. See Award Nos. 7, 235, 287, 300 and 301.

 In Award No. 300 the Board had before it the question of whether the abolishment of positions brought about by the discontinuance of certain trains constituted an operational or organizational change. The Board held:
                                        Award No. 370

                                        Case No. H&RE-26-W


                        -2-


                  "Both Claimants were displaced due to the abolition of a position. Pursuant to Award No. 7 and succeeding Awards, abolition of a position is not an operational or organizational change, and moving expenses therefore are not allowable."


Consistent with the prior awards of this Board, we find that the claim of the Employees is without merit.

                    '" AWARD


The answer to the Stipulated Question at Issue is negative.

                l


                    Neutral ¢mper


                          Ji


        Carrier Labor Member


                                    l:


                                      ,:~J I.-:

                                              1973


                                                ldo


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 October 18, 1973

                                                        Ing